PER CURIAM: Joan E. Jackson appeals the district court’s order awarding
summary judgment to her employer on her claims of gender discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and due process violation. This court reviews a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jackson v. Harvey, No. CA-04-1510-8-RWT (D.Md. Nov. 16, 2004).
We deny Jackson’s motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED